• The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) provides safety assurance to the public in accordance with its statutory duties. The CAA also follows the principles of better regulation which means that our interventions should be proportionate and targeted to achieve the desired safety benefit without imposing undue burdens on stakeholders.

    This GA policy framework is designed to ensure that we are able to continue to fulfil our statutory duties as we deregulate, delegate and introduce proportionate regulation as we committed to do in our response to the Government’s red tape challenge.

    A series of questions have been developed to ensure that we minimise the risks to those we are required to protect; that our regulation is consistent; and that we do not gold-plating European regulations. We are focused primarily on protecting third parties from risks associated with GA activities, whilst enabling GA participants to manage their own risks.

    After working through and answering these questions, using the best available evidence to justify your responses, you should be able determine whether your preferred approach will deliver a more proportionate approach for the UK’s GA sector while protecting third parties. Your detailed response should be retained centrally by the GA Unit.

  • Designed to safeguard our irreducible core of regulation

    1.1 Would the proposal/change to existing regulation affect the Rules of the Air?

    • If yes, consult with Intelligence Strategy Policy (ISP) to identify cost-efficient, targeted and proportionate options to guard against increased third-party risk before proceeding to 1.2.
    • If no, continue directly to 1.2.

    1.2 Would the proposal/change to existing regulation affect pilot medical requirements?

    • If yes, consult with the Intelligence Strategy Policy (ISP) team to identify cost-efficient, targeted and proportionate options to guard against increased third-party risk prior to proceeding to 1.3.
    • If no, continue directly to 1.3.

    1.3 Would the proposal/change to existing regulation affect licensing or training standards?

    • If yes, consult with Intelligence Strategy Policy (ISP) team to identify cost-efficient, targeted and proportionate options to guard against increased third-party risk prior to proceeding to 1.4.
    • If no, continue directly to 1.4.

    1.4 Would the proposal/change to existing regulation affect airspace policy?

    • If yes, consult with Intelligence Strategy Policy (ISP) to identify cost-efficient, targeted and proportionate options to guard against increased third-party risk prior to proceeding to 2.1.
    • If no, continue directly to 2.1.

     

    2.1 Would the proposal/change to existing regulation involve an incremental increase in the level of risk to third parties on the ground?

    2.2 Would the proposal/change to existing regulation involve an incremental increase in the level of risk to commercial transport users of airspace?

    2.3 Would the proposal/change to existing regulation involve an incremental increase in the level of risk to other general aviation users of airspace?

    • If you answered yes to any of questions 2.1, 2.2, or 2.3, you must assess the level of the risks to these classes of third parties by using the following steps:
    1. Conduct a risk assessment using the tables listed in Annex A and Annex B of this policy framework. Determine the level of risk to each separate class of third party (both probability and severity), taking geography and population density into account whilst making your calculations.
    2. List the evidence relied upon in reaching the conclusions regarding risk. Also list any evidence you discounted.
    3. If such risk is at a low level using the criteria in Annex B, the risk is acceptable. 
    4. If such risk is at a medium level using the criteria in Annex B, assess how such risk could be appropriately mitigated in a cost-efficient manner using a proportionate and targeted option. 
    5. Demonstrate using evidence that the above option will be effective and less burdensome than existing regulation.
    6. If such risk is at a high level using the criteria in Annex B, STOP
      The proposal/change to existing regulation is not appropriate. If a change to an existing regulation is proposed in order to remove gold-plating, proceed directly to 5.2.

    After completing these steps, proceed to 2.4.

    • If you answered no to 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, continue directly to 2.4.

    2.4 Would the proposal/change to existing regulation involve an incremental increase in the level of risk to others not on the aircraft which are not listed above?

    • If yes, describe the risk identified, assess the probability and severity of the risk using the tables in Annex A and Annex B and identify targeted and proportionate options to mitigate identified risk. Determine costs associated with targeted option, and continue to 3.1.
    • If no, continue directly to 3.2.

     

    3.1 Does a Qualified Entity (QE) exist which demonstrates through capacity and capability that they are able to perform the option developed in 2.4?

    1. Which understands and can manage the responsibility?
    2. Which has adequate cash flow?
    3. Which has the right leadership and governance structures in place?
    4. Which has well-developed mid-term and long-term strategies?
    5. Which has proper finance procedures in place?
    6. Which is able to identify and manage the risks associated with being given delegated powers and is willing to accept those risks?
    7. Which can deal with the volume of business that they and we expect them to manage?
    • If you answered yes to the majority of these questions, then the preferred option is likely to be delegation and you should explore this option in more detail.
    • If no, then the option is proportionate regulation administered by the CAA. 
      Continue now to 3.3.

    3.2 Deregulation is appropriate if you answered no to 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4.

    If you answered yes to 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, or 2.4, it must be demonstrated that the incremental increase in risk is negligible prior to proceeding with deregulation. 
    Continue now to 3.3.

    3.3 Consultation with industry is appropriate at this stage to discuss the risk assessments conducted, the Better Regulation option proposed, and the impact of such option on industry. Continue now to 4.1.

     

    4.1 Is the non-pilot participant an adult capable of accepting the level and type of risk associated with the activity after full disclosure in accordance with the Safety Standard Acknowledgement and Consent (SSAC) process?

    • If yes, then consult within the CAA, including the Office of General Counsel and the Policy Programmes Team, to apply the SSAC framework to allow adults to participate in the activity.
    • If no, then proceed to 4.2.

    4.2 After conducting a risk assessment for those on board the aircraft using Annex A and Annex B  of this policy framework, is the level of risk associated with the activity at a low level in Annex B?

    • If yes, then, as above, consult within the CAA, including the Office of General Counsel and the Policy Programmes Team, to allow parents/guardians to authorise children to participate in the activity in accordance with SSAC.
    • If no, then children are not permitted to participate in the activity for profit. 
      Proceed to 5.1.

     

    5.1 Is this an area where EASA regulates and the proposal/change to existing regulation would impose a higher standard than EASA?

    • If yes, then proceed to 5.2.
    • If no, then proceed to 6.1.

    5.2 Does the proposal/change to existing regulation qualify for an exemption pursuant to the flexibility provisions under EASA Basic Regulation Article 14?

    • If yes, then proceed in accordance with the requirements listed in Article 14 of the EASA Basic Regulation and proceed directly to 7.1.
    • If no, then STOP. The EASA standard is to apply.

     

    6.1 Does the standard being applied to this activity vary from the standards used or proposed by either EASA or the CAA for activities involving similar risk?

    • If yes, then proceed to 6.2.
    • If no, then proceed directly to 7.1.

    6.2 Have you engaged with EASA/developed proposals as appropriate to further consistency among activities involving similar risk?

    • If yes, then proceed to 7.1.
    • If no, then implement plan for engagement with EASA/development of proposals for similar activities and proceed to 7.1.

     

    7.1 Please provide a conclusion with a detailed explanation using your responses to the questions above, and make a clear proposal on how to proceed.